Possibilities of Religious Skepticism

POSSIBILITIES OF RELIGIOUS SKEPTICISM CERTAIN PHILOSOPHERS OF religion would decribe themselves as religious skeptics. A number believe , indeed, that their orientation should be shared by all. Other philosophers of religion think that religious skepticism is impossible; or at any rate that it is, and should be seen by all to be, an inappropriate stance to adopt. In this paper I wish to set out an approach of my own to the possibilities of religious skepticism. My discussion will focus on states of doubt that arise in relation to the Biblical tradition.1 And I will say at the outset that I have come to regard the matter as more complex than either of the aforementioned groups would suggest. I. PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION Opposing Viewpoints on Religious Skepticism. Let us begin by considering a sampling of remarks made by representatives of the two opposing viewpoints. A leading representative of the former is Kai Nielsen. Nielsen suggests that even " believers characteristically have doubts; even the man in 'the circle of faith' is threatened with disbelief." 2 And the difficulties which 1 This study arises from a background in Christianity, and from reflection on states of doubt in relation to it. I would emphasize, accordingly, that the account I shall offer is thus restricted in its intended scope. The present paper might usefully be read in conjunction with a companion piece, "Understanding and Agreement in Religion," The Modern Schoolman, 55 (1978). That study includes, in particular, a fuller discussion of the notion of "faith awareness," introduced in section II below. I would hope, however, that my suggestions about religious skepticism will be found to be well supported by the present analyses, together with the further research herein envisioned. • Kai Nielsen, " In Defense of Atheism," reprinted in Norbert 0. Schedler, ed., Philosophy of Religion (New York: Macmillan, 1974), p. ~53. 600 POSSIBILITIES OF RELIGIOUS SKEPTICISM 601 arise in this context are by no means idle ones: " some come to reject a religious orientation altogether because of such considerations ." 3 The considerations in question, whether they originate within or without the circle of faith, take a number of different forms. Thus there can be said to be " varieties of religious scepticism." 4 But it can in general be remarked concerning the orientation of skeptics that it involves " a rejection of religion 'because they find Christianity unpersuasive, incredible .' " 5 And well they might, according to Nielsen. For when fully elaborated the difficulties which even many believers feel become general and powerful critiques of religious faith. In relation to the major Western traditions, at any rate, it must be said that " religious belief or commitment is not even reasonable , let alone justified.'' 6 Again, it is possible to produce certain arguments-arguments of relevance to all-which " show why we should be sceptics.'' 7 On the other side of the picture we find philosophers who question the viability of a skeptical orientation. A leading spokesman for this group is D. Z. Phillips. Phillips recognizes the possibility of religious rebellion, in which one comes to " reject and defy" one's tradition and its God.8 He also notes that it happens that "a person cannot bring himself to react in a certain way; he has no use for a certain [religious] picture of the situation." 9 Beyond cases of these sorts, however, the doubts 8 Kai Nielsen, Scepticism (London: Macmillan, 1973), p. 3. • Ibid., p. 4. 5 Ibid., p. 5. The contained quotation is from Ninian Smart, Philosophers and Religious Truth (New York: Macmillan, 1970), p. 9. •Kai Nielsen, Contemporary Critiques of Religion (New York: Herder and Herder, 1971), p. 136. 7 Nielsen, Scepticism, p. 9. Among various other philosophers who express some form of religious skepticism the following might in particular be mentioned: Antony Flew, Ronald Hepburn, and Alasdair Macintyre. See, for example, Flew's God and Philosophy (London: Hutchinson, 1966); Hepburn's Christianity and Paradox (New York: Pegasus, 1968); and Maclntyre's portion of The Religious Significance of Atheism (New York: Columbia, 1969). 8 D. Z. Phillips, Faith and Philosophical Enquiry (New York: Schocken, 1971), p. 31. • Ibid., p. 100. 602 JOHN CARLSON which people-and especially philosophers-express are more questionable in nature and origin. A...